Page 1 of 8
The most deranged military rant I've seen.
Posted: 2008-06-25 12:50am
by Coiler
While browsing around Youtube, I stumbled upon one of the most crazed, illogical naval rants I've ever seen.
Part 1
Part 2
The rant itself is located on the descriptive sidebar-the videos themselves are just clips from a Japanese program on the I-400s.
The author of the rant is one Mike Sparks, who is also an M113 fanboy, battleship fanboy, USMC hater, and general loony. I've been wanting to post a rebuttal, but don't know if I should bother. After all, who with any knowledge of the military at all take someone who proposes
submarine aircraft carriers seriously?
Posted: 2008-06-25 01:49am
by MKSheppard
Oh god! You found Sparky!
Posted: 2008-06-25 02:14am
by weemadando
He's on YouTube now? That's totally un-awesome because it increases his audience. And knowing the general level of moron... (Moron... Moronity? Moron-ness? Morondom?) that exists on YouTube probably far too many people will be agreeing with him.
Posted: 2008-06-25 02:26am
by Sidewinder
Mr. Sparks is getting the WRONG lessons from WWII and the development of the I-400 (as someone who HAS served in the US Army and worked on high-tech toys like the M134 Minigun, I've become quite sensitive to the bullshit found in military wank sites like
Combat Reform).
I also had an idea for a submarine aircraft carrier (I intended to use it in an alternate history story), but I at least acknowledged the HUGE difficulties in getting the damn thing to work (if you're curious, it was based on a ballistic missile submarine so it could launch seaplanes, based on the F2Y Sea Dart, while underwater, but the carrier had to surface to recover the planes because getting a submarineplane to work is a HUGE headache).
MKSheppard wrote:Oh god! You found Sparky!
Is/was he (I'm assuming Sparky is a he) a member of this board? Why does he inspire such dread?
Posted: 2008-06-25 03:32am
by Winston Blake
Sidewinder wrote:Is/was he (I'm assuming Sparky is a he) a member of this board? Why does he inspire such dread?
I'm not even really heavily into military stuff and I've come across the guy's site. Just type the words 'combat reform' into Google and make sure to rest your eyes every five minutes.
EDIT: I don't think he was ever here, but you can bet he wouldn't last long.
Posted: 2008-06-25 03:53am
by phongn
Awhile back we played around with a submersible carrier in the HAB. It ended up being incredibly expensive with a tiny airwing.
Posted: 2008-06-25 06:32am
by PeZook
phongn wrote:Awhile back we played around with a submersible carrier in the HAB. It ended up being incredibly expensive with a tiny airwing.
What can be the
possible benefits of such a setup? It's like making land battleships, for fuck's sake.
Posted: 2008-06-25 06:44am
by Duckie
PeZook wrote:phongn wrote:Awhile back we played around with a submersible carrier in the HAB. It ended up being incredibly expensive with a tiny airwing.
What can be the
possible benefits of such a setup? It's like making land battleships, for fuck's sake.
Coolness.
I defy you to tell me that land battleships and submersible carriers aren't cool.
Posted: 2008-06-25 07:43am
by Vendetta
MRDOD wrote:Coolness.
I defy you to tell me that land battleships and submersible carriers aren't cool.
Whilst it might work fantastically in anime (see: Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann), making your military systems
so awesome the enemy is paralysed and unable to attack due to their sheer overwhelming coolness probably won't work in real life.
Posted: 2008-06-25 08:08am
by Pelranius
Oh, him. Haven't had the dubious pleasure of reading anything he's written, but I have heard about him from the military oriented boards I frequented. Needless to say, he's sort of to the Internet defense community what Darkstar or Supershadow is to Star Wars.
Posted: 2008-06-25 09:27am
by Starglider
phongn wrote:Awhile back we played around with a submersible carrier in the HAB. It ended up being incredibly expensive with a tiny airwing.
Yes, that was started by a friend of mine writing a fanfic set in the Ace Combat universe, where silly superweapons are mandatory (AFAIK he didn't finnish it sadly). The USS Kraken managed to carry about 32 F-35s with horrible launch and recovery rates (not to mention accident rates) at a cost of something like twice that of a Nimitz and less than half the airwing and stores. Survivability was pretty awful and it wasn't even particuarly stealthy. It
did look cool though.
Posted: 2008-06-25 09:51am
by Coiler
Sidewinder wrote:
Is/was he (I'm assuming Sparky is a he) a member of this board? Why does he inspire such dread?
Never a member of this board.
This page is a good lesson on Sparks' insanity.
Posted: 2008-06-25 10:14am
by darthbob88
:wtf: I only read one sentence of the OP's link, and I saw this guy was wacko. I don't suppose he's of any relation to the famous Stuart of SDI? Two loonies who claim to have the solution to the world's troubles in something that would never work?
Posted: 2008-06-25 10:39am
by The Duchess of Zeon
We can blame Cebrowski for any USN approach to the ideas of these dumbasses, the man who wanted our entire fleet to become Little Crappy Ships--with hangars for Harriers.
Posted: 2008-06-25 10:52am
by Einhander Sn0m4n
Coiler wrote:This page is a good lesson on Sparks' insanity.
Here's a thought: Upsize the M113 within acceptable ground-pressure rates, mount grenade machineguns on the top, and call the result 'Land Raider'.
Posted: 2008-06-25 10:56am
by CaptainZoidberg
darthbob88 wrote::wtf: I only read one sentence of the OP's link, and I saw this guy was wacko. I don't suppose he's of any relation to the famous Stuart of SDI? Two loonies who claim to have the solution to the world's troubles in something that would never work?
Nah, Stuart seemed much more out of it.
Posted: 2008-06-25 11:04am
by Zixinus
#
Me: …troops in the field LOVE their Strykers. I have personally talked to many of them and the praise is universal. Interestingly enough, I have not heard of a single one harping for the-good-ol-days of the M-113.
Sparky: WHAT TROOPS?
THE TROOPS IN THE STRYKER TRUCK BRIGADES ARE LYING NARCISSIST EGOMANIACS LIKE YOU.
IF THEY WERE RIDING IN MANURE WAGONS SUPPLIED BY THE MOTHER/DADDY OUTFIT THEY LEAN ON FOR THEIR SELF-ESTEEM THEY'D BE MAKING RATIONALIZATIONS: "ACTUALLY THE MANURE ACTS TO HIDE US FROM THERMAL DETECTION...AND AFTER AWHILE THE OLFACTORY SENSE STOP WORKING SO YOU DON'T NOTICE THE SMELL"
NONE OF THEM HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER WITH FULLY MODERNIZED M113 GAVINS SO THEY HAVE NO IDEA "WHAT RIGHT LOOKS LIKE" (SORTA LIKE THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE). THEY HAVE NO STANDARD OF COMPARISON BUT WE DO KNOW THAT OLD TECHNOLOGY M113 GAVIN ACAVS KICKED ASS IN VIETNAM AND STRYKER TRUCK BRIGADES AND USMC TRUCK-INFANTRY UNITS ARE HAVING THEIR ASSES KICKED IN IRAQ. I GO WITH THE WINNERS, AND SO SHOULD YOU IF YOU KNEW WHAT WAS BEST!
AIRBORNE!
A friend of mine, serving with a Stryker unit in Iraq and who also participated in the Ft Lewis M113A3/Stryker tests wrote to Sparky recently, questioning some claims Sparky made in one of his YouTube videos. In his reply Sparky called this serving combat veteran, who, unlike Sparky has actually fought for his country, a fucktard loser narcissist.
The guy seems to be genuinely insane. No, really, this guy makes CREATIONISTS look sane.
Posted: 2008-06-25 11:19am
by Coyote
I always found it amusing that this guy fights so ferociously to apply his brand to a vehicle that is already being phased out and fading into obsolescence.
I mean, why not start a campaign to rename the 'Brown Bess', the musket used by the British Redcoats? We can call it the XM-211 Lightning Musket.
Posted: 2008-06-25 12:37pm
by Coyote
Posted: 2008-06-25 01:26pm
by Peptuck
I don't know whether to laugh at the sheer retarded design or the sheer shittiness of his photoshop.
Posted: 2008-06-25 01:47pm
by Rogue 9
I think he has some sort of filter on the comments for his videos; I can't get any to show up.
Posted: 2008-06-25 02:25pm
by Sarevok
Within minutes my BABBler training kicked in. Yep it does look and smell like a woo woo site. I mean come on look at the gigantic badly formatted pages filled with ALL CAPS HEADLINES OF DOOM !!!! Plus they talk about the Illumanati and the Black Sun and stuff I thought only existed in Deus Ex video games. This site is on same level as lizardmen and planet x sites.
Posted: 2008-06-25 02:42pm
by Sea Skimmer
PeZook wrote:
What can be the possible benefits of such a setup? It's like making land battleships, for fuck's sake.
I dare say a land battleship in the 10,000 ton class would be substantially more practical and useful then any possible submarine carrier. At least it could soak up IED hits all day long before all its dozens of separate track units got broken or it bogged down in a lake of raw sewage.
Starglider wrote:
Yes, that was started by a friend of mine writing a fanfic set in the Ace Combat universe, where silly superweapons are mandatory (AFAIK he didn't finnish it sadly). The USS Kraken managed to carry about 32 F-35s with horrible launch and recovery rates (not to mention accident rates) at a cost of something like twice that of a Nimitz and less than half the airwing and stores. Survivability was pretty awful and it wasn't even particuarly stealthy. It did look cool though.
That it did; the cost estimate meanwhile was around 30 billion. That’s over three times the cost of CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford, and over four times the cost of a Nimitz.
That idea isn’t as uniquely insane as it could be; I happen to have a picture of some USMC urban warfare training in which a truck with a dumpster that could for some reason rise vertically on a scissors lift (I think the real purpose of the truck is lifting containers onto planes) was being used to allow a couple Marines to slowly climb through a second story window.
Posted: 2008-06-25 02:54pm
by CJvR
PeZook wrote:What can be the possible benefits of such a setup? It's like making land battleships, for fuck's sake.
In WWII it could be a way to slip a surprise air raid past enemy surveilance assets. Also in the vastness of the Pacific pre-radar scouting meant air recognosance or cruisers. The US built flying aircraft carriers to scout for the fleet. A SSCV could surface on the calm days and have it's air wing do a sweep and then relay it to standard subs. IIRC the IJN had at least one class with a scout plane onboard.
Posted: 2008-06-25 03:26pm
by Sidewinder
PeZook wrote:phongn wrote:Awhile back we played around with a submersible carrier in the HAB. It ended up being incredibly expensive with a tiny airwing.
What can be the
possible benefits of such a setup? It's like making land battleships, for fuck's sake.
My idea is that the submarine aircraft carrier can use its natural stealth to sneak in closer to a target before launching its aircraft to attack. (That's one reason I had the idea for using a modified ballistic missile submarine, so the aircraft can be launched while the ship was still submerged.) But the technology we currently have does NOT make this advantage worthwhile. (You can launch larger aircraft from a conventional carrier, ones with greater range than what's possible in a sub, due to the size limitations. Stealth carrier-borne aircraft are also likely to be significantly cheaper to develop and manufacture than something you can launch from a sub.)
EDIT: I thought some of Sparks' ideas sounded familiar, so I did a quick check on Amazon.com. It turns out he was the editor of an entire fucking book on heavy armor bashing and airborne wanking:
Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century. The book cover says he's a lieutenant in the US Army Reserves. I wonder whose [delete reference to sexual intercourse] he did to earn the rank?
